Covering up child abuse

[Nearly Sane]

At what point is an organisation inherently dangerous?


https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-45190355

[Roses]

I can only thank my lucky stars I was not brought up a Catholic, where child sexual abuse was endemic, and maybe still is. The cover up by the church authorities is terrible and they should be brought to account.

Do the paedophile priests think saying a few hail marys will absolve them of their crimes? 

I would like to hear our resident devout Catholic's opinion on this topic.

[SteveH]

I would like to hear fewer of your opinions on any topic.

[Shaker]

I would like to hear fewer of your opinions on any topic.

Discussion forums may not be for you.

[Roses]

Discussion forums may not be for you.

 

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Obviously there are some who would argue that Christianity in toto is harmful.

However,early Christianity starting with the apostles represents a moral revolution marked by impeccability.

Sadly, this pattern has not been followed by the network and institute known as the New atheists, who, comparatively speaking are still in the age of the apostles and yet public suspicion of it's impeccability seems to have crept in.

I say this not to defend Catholicism. I think it may be time for a root and branch change of direction there and probably one that will be forced on them. The catholic experience which should be heeded by all networks and institutions is ''your sins will find you out'' and even suppression won't work.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

At what point is an organisation inherently dangerous?

When rumours food shortages and vital medicine unavailability begin?

[Nearly Sane]

When rumours food shortages and vital medicine unavailability begin?

You seem to be suggesting that protecting child abusers is fine. I presume you didn't mean that?

[Rhiannon]

At what point is an organisation inherently dangerous?


https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-45190355

This point?

[Owlswing]

This point?

NO! That point was passed (possibly) a hundref years ago if not more!

[Nearly Sane]

Was it known?


https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/former-vatican-ambassador-says-pope-benedict-and-pope-francis-knew-of-sexual-misconduct-allegations-against-mccarrick-for-years/2018/08/26/5ac6dcda-a7e0-11e8-ad6f-080770dcddc2_story.html

[Roses]

Catholics should be asking themselves what it is about their doctrine which encourages a large number of their priests to be paedophiles, and their hierarchy to cover it up?


Yes all denominations have priests who are perverts, but not in the numbers with which the RCC is riddled.

[SteveH]

Catholics should be asking themselves what it is about their doctrine which encourages a large number of their priests to be paedophiles, and their hierarchy to cover it up?


Yes all denominations have priests who are perverts, but not in the numbers with which the RCC is riddled.

And the answer is priestly celibacy. If an individual priest feels called to be celebate, fair enough, but it shouldn't be imposed on all.

[Robbie]

No one is forced to be a priest. Plenty of people are celibate, not always from choice, and aren't perverts. If they did decide & were able to have a sexual relationship they wouldn't want a child, that's something quite different.

Perverts will look for professions/voluntary work/hobbies that give them access to the vulnerable. Being clergy is one example.

[Rhiannon]

The priesthood is a vocation, as is monasticism. From what I have read about both, celibacy is a struggle for many. Yes, nobody makes them join. But to have a strong calling and yet still have the normal wants and desires that many - most? - of us experience is really not easy and can be a terrible source of inner conflict.

[Roses]

And the answer is priestly celibacy. If an individual priest feels called to be celebate, fair enough, but it shouldn't be imposed on all.

I think to some extent you are right, although enforced celibacy is not an excuse for child sexual abuse.

[SteveH]

I think to some extent you are right, although enforced celibacy is not an excuse for child sexual abuse.

Of course not I'm offering a partial explanation, not excusing it.

[ippy]

There's a intelligence squared debate about, 'Is the catholic church a force for good in the world', you can get it on YouTube, Stephen Fry's contribution says it all about the RCC, imo there's nothing needed to be added to his testimony, I think it's faultless.

Regards ippy

[Harrowby Hall]

For Catholic priests, celibacy means not marrying, not abstaining from sexual activity.  Engaging in sexual activity is a mortal sin and has to be confessed and atoned for. It is not a disqualification from the priesthood.

Celibacy - in its correct sense - was introduced to protect church property.

It may be that the incidence of inappropriate sexual activity is no higher among catholic priests than among ministers of any religion - it just gets more publicity. Or it may be that there is some aspect about the life of catholic priests that appeals to homosexual hebephiles. They may be attracted to the priesthood because it gives them potential access to victims. Certainly, the traditional behaviour of the church authorities has been to protect the image of the institution rather than publicly condemn the miscreants.

Abolishing the rule of celibacy may have little effect.

[SteveH]

For Catholic priests, celibacy means not marrying, not abstaining from sexual activity.  Engaging in sexual activity is a mortal sin and has to be confessed and atoned for. It is not a disqualification from the priesthood.

I think you're committing the etymological fallacy here, confusing the etymology of a word with its meaning. "Celibate" is from a root meaning "unmarried", but as used nowadays, it meanes "abstainig from sex".

Celibacy - in its correct sense - was introduced to protect church property.

Evidence?

It may be that the incidence of inappropriate sexual activity is no higher among catholic priests than among ministers of any religion - it just gets more publicity. Or it may be that there is some aspect about the life of catholic priests that appeals to homosexual hebephiles. They may be attracted to the priesthood because it gives them potential access to victims. Certainly, the traditional behaviour of the church authorities has been to protect the image of the institution rather than publicly condemn the miscreants.

Abolishing the rule of celibacy may have little effect.

Or it may have considerable effect.

[Harrowby Hall]

As far as the Catholic Church is concerned the rule of celibacy means that priests do not marry. Until about 1200, priests did marry (the rule was not enforced) and had children. It was the practice of priests arranging for their offspring to inherit church property which created the need to enforce the rule.

Since the RC Church operates in many countries and many languages it is quite possible that the practice in English to regard "celibate" as meaning "abstaining from sex" is idiosyncratic. In French it certainly means "unmarried".

[Owlswing]

There's a intelligence squared debate about, 'Is the catholic church a force for good in the world', you can get it on YouTube, Stephen Fry's contribution says it all about the RCC, imo there's nothing needed to be added to his testimony, I think it's faultless.

Regards ippy

I have watched this several tmes and each time my respect for Stephen Fry is justified.

In the same debate Anne Widdicombe made me want to vomit but the vote at the end of the debate, especially the difference from the one taken before the debate, was a vindication of everything he said - unfortunately his partner in the debate will give one poster on this Forum apoplexy!

[Nearly Sane]

I have watched this several tmes and each time my respect for Stephen Fry is justified.

In the same debate Anne Widdicombe made me want to vomit but the vote at the end of the debate, especially the difference from the one taken before the debate, was a vindication of everything he said - unfortunately his partner in the debate will give one poster on this Forum apoplexy!

The vote here is merely an ad pop. And all it shows is that one side had better debaters. It's the same nonsense that Alan/Alien, once of this parish, used to trout out about William Lane Craig. The better speaker is no indication of them being right.

[jeremyp]

The vote here is merely an ad pop. And all it shows is that one side had better debaters. It's the same nonsense that Alan/Alien, once of this parish, used to trout out about William Lane Craig. The better speaker is no indication of them being right.

That would be the Intelligence Squared debate between Steven Fry and Christopher Hitchens on the one hand and Anne Widdicomb and a catholic bishop whose name escapes me on the other. Fry and Hitchens totally knocked it out of the park. I happen to think they were right, but they won the debate because they were better prepared and they were more eloquent.

I have seen some of WLC's debates with atheists. In my opinion, the atheist usually loses because WLC is better prepared and he is eloquent and he knows the tricks of formal debating. The only atheist I have seen who got the better of WLC was Sam Harris and he did it mainly by refusing to play by the rules.

[Nearly Sane]

That would be the Intelligence Squared debate between Steven Fry and Christopher Hitchens on the one hand and Anne Widdicomb and a catholic bishop whose name escapes me on the other. Fry and Hitchens totally knocked it out of the park. I happen to think they were right, but they won the debate because they were better prepared and they were more eloquent.

I have seen some of WLC's debates with atheists. In my opinion, the atheist usually loses because WLC is better prepared and he is eloquent and he knows the tricks of formal debating. The only atheist I have seen who got the better of WLC was Sam Harris and he did it mainly by refusing to play by the rules.

Yep, thank you for the agreement